Relationship between the MBTI Step 1 instrument and the 16PF questionnaire

Significant Differences by Type Dichotomy

Extraversion-Introversion Table 5 below shows the mean score for Extraverts and for Introverts on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test). Table 5: 16PF Differences between Extraverts and Introverts Factor A (Warmth) B (Reasoning) C (Emotional stability) E (Dominance) F (Liveliness) G (Rule-consciousness) H (Social boldness) I (Sensitivity) L (Vigilance) M (Abstractness) N (Privateness) O (Apprehension) Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control Extravert Mean 15.89 12.54 15.90 16.10 14.30 10.29 15.32 11.95 8.69 6.60 7.88 9.66 20.53 5.44 10.09 11.01 10.98 7.38 4.03 4.91 6.85 4.80 Introvert Mean 11.89 12.99 14.23 13.92 9.68 12.05 6.52 11.38 9.82 6.79 13.42 11.37 18.27 9.75 10.77 11.40 10.83 4.79 4.87 5.66 5.34 5.61 Mean Diff1 4.01 -0.44 1.67 2.19 4.61 -1.77 8.80 0.57 -1.13 -0.19 -5.54 -1.71 2.26 -4.31 -0.68 -0.39 0.15 2.58 -0.83 -0.75 1.51 -0.81 Sten Diff2 1.58 -0.39 0.77 1.20 1.84 -0.66 2.24 0.10 -0.65 -0.06 -2.06 -0.68 0.90 -1.61 -0.32 -0.27 0.07 2.58 -0.83 -0.75 1.51 -0.81 Sig3 *** * *** *** *** *** *** NS ** NS *** *** *** *** NS NS NS *** *** *** *** ***

In part because of the large sample size, most scales show a statistically significant difference between Extraverts and Introverts. Some of these differences are in practice, however, quite small, and for practical purposes it is useful to take a difference of one sten as a meaningful amount.

1 Raw score difference between Extraverts and Introverts. Negative values indicate a higher score for Introverts. 2 Sten difference between Extraverts and Introverts. 3 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 0.1% level; ** sig at 1% level; * sig at 5% level.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 8

February 13th 2004

On this basis, Extraverts tend to be more: Socially bold (H) Lively (F) Warm (A) Dominant (E) And higher on Global Extraversion and Global Independence

Introverts tend to be more: Private (N) Self-reliant (Q2)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 3 below. Figure 3: Mean Sten Scores of Extraverts and Introverts on the 16PF scales
9 8 7

Sten

6 5 4 3 2 A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G. G. G. G. G. Ex An TM In SC
Introverts

Extraverts

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 9

February 13th 2004

Sensing - Intuition Table 6 below shows the mean score for Sensing types and for Intuitives on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test). Table 6: 16PF Differences between Sensing and Intuition Factor A (Warmth) B (Reasoning) C (Emotional stability) E (Dominance) F (Liveliness) G (Rule-consciousness) H (Social boldness) I (Sensitivity) L (Vigilance) M (Abstractness) N (Privateness) O (Apprehension) Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control Sensing Mean 14.00 12.42 15.42 14.86 11.86 12.04 11.01 10.88 9.43 4.40 10.18 10.50 17.22 7.46 11.78 11.43 11.09 6.14 4.49 6.07 5.81 5.83 Intuitive Mean 14.59 13.06 15.06 15.59 13.02 10.00 12.59 12.51 8.87 8.82 9.99 10.20 21.91 6.88 9.02 10.92 10.76 6.54 4.25 4.42 6.65 4.48 Mean Diff4 -0.59 -0.64 0.36 -0.72 -1.16 2.04 -1.58 -1.63 0.56 -4.43 0.19 0.30 -4.69 0.58 2.76 0.51 0.33 -0.40 0.24 1.66 -0.84 1.35 Sten Diff5 -0.18 -0.35 0.06 -0.44 -0.53 0.80 -0.47 -0.66 0.27 -1.64 0.07 0.18 -1.65 0.15 1.03 0.26 0.05 -0.40 0.24 1.66 -0.84 1.35 Sig6 NS ** NS * ** *** *** *** NS *** NS NS *** NS *** NS NS ** NS *** *** ***

Looking at those scales which show a difference of at least one sten, Those with a preference for Sensing tend to be higher on Perfectionism (Q3), Global Tough-mindedness and Global Self-control. Those with a preference for Intuition tend to be higher on: Openness to change (Q1) and Abstractness (M)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 4 overleaf.

4 5

Raw score difference between Sensing and Intuition. Negative values indicate a higher score for Intuitives. Sten difference between Sensing and Intuition. 6 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 1% level; ** sig at 5% level; * sig at 10% level.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 10

February 13th 2004

Figure 4: Mean Sten Scores of Sensing and Intuitive Types on the 16PF scales
9 8 7

Sten

6 5 4 3 2 A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G. G. G. G. G. Ex An TM In SC
Intuitive

Sensing

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 11

February 13th 2004

Thinking-Feeling Table 7 below shows the mean score for Thinking and for Feeling types on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test). Table 7: 16PF Differences between Thinking and Feeling Factor A (Warmth) B (Reasoning) C (Emotional stability) E (Dominance) F (Liveliness) G (Rule-consciousness) H (Social boldness) I (Sensitivity) L (Vigilance) M (Abstractness) N (Privateness) O (Apprehension) Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control Thinking Mean 13.42 12.81 15.83 15.66 12.20 11.10 11.87 10.60 9.35 6.23 10.47 9.38 19.61 7.33 10.49 10.93 11.08 6.13 4.16 5.52 6.39 5.22 Feeling Mean 16.97 12.48 13.42 13.94 13.26 10.65 11.68 15.10 8.52 8.00 8.92 13.25 19.69 6.63 9.94 11.88 10.44 7.03 5.01 4.23 5.81 4.81 Mean Diff7 -3.55 0.33 2.41 1.73 -1.06 0.45 0.19 -4.50 0.83 -1.77 1.55 -3.87 -0.08 0.70 0.55 -0.95 0.63 -0.90 -0.85 1.28 0.58 0.41 Sten Diff8 -1.55 0.39 0.90 0.77 -0.50 0.21 0.02 -1.59 0.37 -0.61 0.56 -1.31 0.04 0.36 0.23 -0.28 0.27 -0.90 -0.85 1.28 0.58 0.41 Sig9 *** NS *** *** * NS NS *** * *** ** *** NS NS NS NS NS *** *** *** *** **

Looking at those scales that show a difference of at least one sten, Thinking types tend to be higher on Global Tough-mindedness. Feeling types tend to be more: Sensitive (I) Warm (A) Apprehensive (O)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 5 overleaf.

7 8

Raw score difference between Thinking and Feeling. Negative values indicate a higher score for Feeling. Sten difference between Thinking and Feeling. 9 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 0.1% level; ** sig at 1% level; * sig at 5% level.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 12

February 13th 2004

Figure 5: Mean Sten Scores of Thinking and Feeling Types on the 16PF scales
9 8 7

Sten

6 5 4 3 2 A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G. G. G. G. G. Ex An TM In SC
Feeling

Thinking

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 13

February 13th 2004

Judging - Perceiving Table 8 below shows the mean score for Judging and for Perceiving types on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test). Table 8: 16PF Differences between Judging and Perceiving Factor A (Warmth) B (Reasoning) C (Emotional stability) E (Dominance) F (Liveliness) G (Rule-consciousness) H (Social boldness) I (Sensitivity) L (Vigilance) M (Abstractness) N (Privateness) O (Apprehension) Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control Judging Mean 14.34 12.61 15.43 15.12 12.12 11.94 11.78 11.69 8.99 5.27 10.00 10.45 18.89 7.13 12.17 11.20 11.17 6.31 4.36 5.53 6.05 5.79 Perceiving Mean 14.24 12.96 14.89 15.43 13.06 9.33 11.90 11.78 9.40 9.11 10.23 10.15 20.93 7.21 7.21 11.10 10.47 6.42 4.38 4.64 6.59 3.96 Mean Diff10 0.09 -0.35 0.54 -0.32 -0.95 2.62 -0.13 -0.09 -0.40 -3.84 -0.23 0.30 -2.04 -0.08 4.95 0.10 0.70 -0.11 -0.02 0.89 -0.54 1.83 Sten Diff11 0.03 -0.35 0.18 -0.30 -0.49 1.16 -0.10 -0.03 -0.17 -1.57 -0.16 0.10 -0.79 -0.03 1.91 0.02 0.26 -0.11 -0.02 0.89 -0.54 1.83 Sig12 NS NS NS NS * *** NS NS NS *** NS NS *** NS *** NS NS NS NS *** *** ***

Looking at scales with a difference of at least one sten, Judging types tend to be more: Perfectionist (Q3) Rule-conscious (G) And higher on Global Self-control.

Perceiving types tend to be more: Abstract (M)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 6 overleaf. Figure 6: Mean Sten Scores of Judging and Perceiving Types on the 16PF scales
10

Raw score difference between Judging and Perceiving. Negative values indicate a higher score for Perceiving 11 Sten difference between Judging and Perceiving. 12 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 0.1% level; ** sig at 1% level; * sig at 5% level.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 14

February 13th 2004

9 8 7

Sten

6 5 4 3 2 A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G. G. G. G. G. Ex An TM In SC
Perceiving

Judging

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 15

February 13th 2004

Correlation of MBTI Continuous Scores with the 16PF

The MBTI is a typing inventory and as such the most appropriate analysis in comparing type dichotomies to the 16PF is to look for significant differences between E and I, S and N, T and F, J and P, or to look at the interaction between 16PF scores and whole type categories. It has, however, become accepted practice to correlate MBTI continuous scores with other instruments, even though this arguably misrepresents the way in which the MBTI dichotomies work. MBTI preference scores were available for 395 people; these were used to compute continuous scores that were correlated with the 16PF scales. The results are presented in Table 9 below. Table 9: Correlation of MBTI Continuous Scores with the 16PF 16PF Factor A (Warmth) B (Reasoning) C (Emotional Stability) E (Dominance) F (Liveliness) G (Rule-consciousness) H (Social Boldness) I (Sensitivity) L (Vigilance) M (Abstractness) N (Privateness) O (Apprehension) Q1 (Openness to Change) Q2 (Self-Reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control E-I
-.502 *** -.037 -.182 *** -.308 *** -.585 *** .183 *** -.799 *** -.090 .187 *** .024 .561 *** .136 * -.283 *** .466 *** .072 .126 * -.018 -.732 *** .258 *** .267 *** -.494 *** .278 ***

SN
.121 * .092 -.039 .049 .154 ** -.295 *** .163 ** .267 *** -.158 ** .481 *** -.072 -.056 .568 *** -.116 * -.261 *** -.030 -.059 .182 *** -.097 -.571 *** .291 *** -.453 ***

TF
.460 *** -.017 -.234 *** -.249 *** .160 ** -.102 .049 .466 *** -.160 ** .118 * -.261 *** .336 *** .062 -.247 *** -.148 ** .004 .041 .369 *** .147 ** -.369 *** -.172 *** -.176 ***

J-P
.102 -.018 -.174 ** -.043 .153 ** -.373 *** .034 .121 * -.032 .427 *** -.075 .005 .325 *** -.059 -.582 *** -.036 -.174 ** .124 * .007 -.369 *** .167 *** -.632 ***

The highest correlates of each type dichotomy were therefore as follows: E I: S N: T F: J P: H (-.80), Global. Extraversion (-.73), F (-.59), N (.56), A (.50), Global Independence (-.49), Q2 (.47) Global Tough-Mindedness (-.57), Q1 (.57), M (.48), Global Self-control (-.45) I (.47), A (.46) Global Self-control (-.63), Q3 (-.58), M (.43)

Unsurprisingly, there is a very similar picture here to that shown by the t-tests in the previous section of this report.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 16

February 13th 2004

The overall pattern of results is also similar to that shown by the correlation between MBTI Form G and the 16PF5 in a student sample, referenced in both the MBTI Manual (Myers et al, 1998) and the 16PF5 Administrators Guide (Russell and Karol, 1994). There are, however, also some differences. These include: In general, the correlations between the two questionnaires tend to be stronger for this outplacement sample than for the student sample. For Extraversion-Introversion, this sample shows stronger relationships with Q1, Global Tough-Mindedness and Global Self-Control, but a weaker relationship with Factor C. For Sensing-Intuition, this sample shows stronger relationships with Factors A, F and Q2, but weaker relationships with Factors B and E. For Thinking-Feeling, this sample shows stronger relationships with Factors C, F, I, M, Q2, Global Extraversion, Global Anxiety and Global Self-Control. For Judging-Perceiving, this sample shows stronger relationships with Factors C and Global Tough-Mindedness, but a weaker relationship with Factor N.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 17

February 13th 2004

The Relationship of Whole Type to the 16PF

A one-way analysis of variance showed that whole type showed a statistically significant interaction (at the 1% level or better) with all the global factors of the 16PF and with all 16 primary factors except B (reasoning), which did reach significance at the 5% level, and Q4 (tension), which was not significant. There was also no significant interaction with Impression Management. Table 10 below shows a number of hypotheses that have been generated13 about the relationship of whole type or combinations of letters to the 16PF and the extent to which the data supports these. Table 10: Hypotheses about Whole Type and 16PF Hypothesis ENFJ: High on A and I ENTJ: Higher E than non-E- - J ENTP: F+, G-, H+, I-, M+, Q1+, Q3ESFJ: High on A and I Higher E than -SFP A+, E+, F+, I+, L-, M-, Q2ESFP: Higher Q1 than S-J Higher Q3 than N-P ESTJ: Higher E than non E- - J Higher F than ISTJ ESTP: Higher Q1 than S-J Higher Q3 than N-P INFP: Low/Mid on A but High on I High on Q2 INTJ: Higher M than ENTJ ISFJ: Higher E than SFP Higher Q3 than ESFJ, ESTJ ISFP: Low-mid on A but high on I Higher Q1 than S-J Higher Q3 than N-P A+, G-, I+, L-, M-, Q1-, Q3ISTJ: Higher Q3 than ESTJ, ESFJ A-, E+, F-, I-, M-, Q1-, Q2+, Q3+ ISTP: Higher Q1 than S-J Higher Q3 than N-P Results High on both Higher than most, but E- - P higher I midzone, otherwise all High on both False E low, otherwise all Yes Yes (ESFP mid; -N-P very low True except for ENTP True False True True False True False True False. Mid on both False True Mixed False All true except E True except for ESTJ True True?

Out of 25 hypotheses, 15 (60%) were supported, 2 (8%) had mixed evidence and 8 (32%) were rejected. Table 11 overleaf shows the four highest scoring and the four lowest scoring types for each 16PF factor except Q4 and IM, with the mean sten score for each type. Looking at this table, it is remarkable how neatly type combinations relate to many of the 16PF factors. In the first line of the table, for example, the four types with the highest score on Factor A (Warmth) all have a preference for Extraversion and Feeling and the four types
13

From Rob McPherson/Lynne Hindmarch and from OPP 16PF users

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 18

February 13th 2004

with the lowest score all have a preference for Introversion and Thinking. This is illustrated further by figure 7 on the following pages. Table 11: Whole Type Differences on the 16PF 16PF Factor A (Warmth) B (Reasoning) C (Emotional Stability) E (Dominance) F (Liveliness) Four Highest Types ESFP (7.8), ESFJ (7.3), ENFP (7.2), ENFJ (7.0) INTP (8.9), INFJ (8.7), INTJ (8.5), ISTP (8.4) ESTP (7.2), ESTJ (6.9), ENTJ (6.6), ENTP (6.4) ENTP (7.3), ENTJ (7.3), ESTP (7.1), ESTJ (6.9) ESFP (7.0), ENFP (6.8), ENTP (6.6), ENFJ (6.5), ESFJ (6.5) ISFJ (6.0), INFJ (6.0), ISTJ (5.8), INTJ (5.4) ENTJ (6.8), ESTJ (6.8), ENFP (6.7), ENFJ (6.7) INFJ (7.2), ENFP (6.5), ESFJ (6.4), INFP (6.4) ISTP (4.8), ISTJ (4.5), INFJ (4.4), ISFP (4.1) ENFP (6.9), INFP (6.9), ENTP (6.1), ISFP (6.0) ISTP (6.2), INTP (6.1), ISTJ (5.4), ISFJ (5.3) INFJ (7.4), ISFP (6.4), ISFJ (6.1), ESFP (6.1) ENTP (8.2), ENFP (8.2), ENFJ (8.0), ENTJ (7.9) INTP (5.7), ISFP (5.7), ISTJ (5.6), INFJ (5.6) ISFJ (6.0), ESFJ (5.8), ESTJ (5.8), ISTJ (5.7) ENFJ (8.0), ESFJ (8.0), ESFP (7.8), ENFP (7.8) INFJ (6.1), ISFP (6.0), ISFJ (5.5), ESFJ (5.2) ISTJ (6.8), ESTP (6.2), ESTJ (6.2), ISTP (5.9) ENTP (7.5), ENTJ (7.1), ESTP (6.8), ESTJ (6.7) ISTJ (6.5), ISFJ (6.4), ESTJ (6.0), INTJ (5.9) Four Lowest Types ISTP (4.0), INTP (4.1), ISTJ (4.2), INTJ (4.6) ESFJ (7.2), ENFJ (7.3), ESTJ (7.6), ISFJ (7.7) ISFP (4.7), ISFJ (4.8), INFJ (5.0), INFP (5.3) ISFP (4.8), INFJ (5.1), ISFJ (5.1), INFP (5.7) ISTJ (4.1), ISFP (4.1), INTJ (4.5), INFJ (4.9), ENFP (3.6), ENTP (4.0), INTP (4.0), ESFP (4.2) ISFP (3.9), ISFJ (4.1), ISTJ (4.1), ISTP (4.5) ESTP (3.9), ESTJ (4.2), ISTP (4.5), ISTJ (4.6) ENFJ (2.6), ENTJ (3.4), ENFP (3.4), ESFP (3.4) ESTJ (3.5), ESFJ (3.8), ISTJ (3.9), ISFJ (4.2) ENFJ (2.4), ESFP (2.8), ESFJ (3.0), ESTP (3.3) ESTP (3.8), ESTJ (4.1), ENTP (4.4), ENTJ (4.4) ISTJ (5.5), ISFP (5.7), ISFJ (6.0), ESFJ (6.1) ESFJ (3.2), ESTJ (3.7), ENFJ (3.7), ENTP (3.8) ISFP (2.9), ENTP (3.2), ENFP (3.5), INFP (3.6) ISTJ (4.4), ISTP (4.5), INTP (4.6), ISFP (4.7) ESTP (3.4), ESTJ (3.7), ENTJ (3.9), ENTP (4.0) ENFP (3.0), INFP (3.6), ENFJ (3.7), INFJ (3.8) ISFP (4.4), ISFJ (4.6), INFJ (5.0), ISTJ (5.00) ENFP (3.2), ENTP (3.5), INFP (3.9), INTP (4.25)

G (Rule-consciousness) H (Social Boldness) I (Sensitivity) L (Vigilance) M (Abstractness) N (Privateness) O (Apprehension) Q1 (Openness to Change) Q2 (Self-Reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control

Note: these results should be treated with caution, as the sample sizes for some types notably INFJ and ISFP are small. See table 3.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 19

February 13th 2004

Figure 7: The Four Highest Scoring and the Four Lowest Scoring Types for each 16 Scale (except Q4 and IM) Four lowest means Factor A (Warmth) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ Four highest means Factor B (Reasoning) ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Factor C (Emotional Stability) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ

Factor E (Dominance) ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Factor F (Liveliness) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Factor G (Rule-consciousness) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Factor H (Social Boldness) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ

Factor I (Sensitivity) ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Factor L (Vigilance) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ

Factor M (Abstractness) ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Factor N (Privateness) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ

Factor O (Apprehension) ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 20

February 13th 2004

Figure 7 (continued) Four lowest means Factor Q1 (Openness to Change) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ Four highest means Factor Q2 (Self-Reliance) ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Factor Q3 (Perfectionism) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ

Global Extraversion ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Global Anxiety ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP

Global Tough-mindedness ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

ESTP ESTJ

Global Independence ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ

Global Self-control ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Presenting the data in this form makes it easier for MBTI users who are accustomed to referring to type tables to see what is going on, and provides a way in which continuous scores such as 16PF raw scores or stens can be mapped against whole type. A possible further refinement is shown in figure 8 below:

Figure 8: Mean of Factor A for each Type Factor A (Warmth) ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ In this diagram, the depth of the shading for each type is exactly related to the mean on factor A for that type. ISTPs have the lowest mean, and ESFPs the highest.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please note: 16PF is a registered trade mark of the Institute for Personality & Ability testing, Inc

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 21

February 13th 2004

 MBTI and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are registered trade marks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust. OPP Limited is licensed to use the trademark in Europe111

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 22

February 13th 2004